KY. man shoots down drone...

[Sam1]

Well, according what I see on the FAA's website, once that drone leaves your line of sight, it is illegal:

 

 

the FAA reiterated the operating guidelines in AC 91-57, and further noted that to qualify as a model aircraft, the aircraft would need to be operated purely for recreational or hobby purposes, and within the visual line of sight of the operator. 

 

 

There's no way they seen that drone over 1000 feet away, so that will bring another variable into the equation.

[bersaguy]

I'm just wondering how long it will be before ISIS or some other terrorist groups begin using these small personal drones to begin flying explosive devices into air crafts or flying them into military bases and blowing up buildings and killing soldiers in the bases. Think about how much damage 1 lb of C-4 can do when detonated? They could detonate one under the bottom of an airliner and bring it down. I bet it's not long before we begin to see it happening...............jmho  

[OldHat63]

Okay, what happens to you if you shoot a trespasser who poses no threat to you?

1. - Apples and Oranges.  Especially since we both know that depending on exactly where the trespasser is, they may automatically be considered a threat, according to TN law. ( Anybody remember the off-duty deputy a few years back that was on the front porch of a house he didn't own, and was shot by the home owner through the door?  How'd that turn out? )

 

Also... TN allows for the use of force - but not lethal force - to terminate simple trespass.

 

2. - Since a drone isn't alive, no amount of force used against it can be considered "lethal". It's not alive, so it's nothing worse than property damage.  The only trouble that will come is from such things as firing a gun where it's illegal, or endangering others.

 

One way or the other, we're not discussing shooting humans here... only their toys.

[OldHat63]

I'm just wondering how long it will be before ISIS or some other terrorist groups begin using these small personal drones to begin flying explosive devices into air crafts or flying them into military bases and blowing up buildings and killing soldiers in the bases. Think about how much damage 1 lb of C-4 can do when detonated? They could detonate one under the bottom of an airliner and bring it down. I bet it's not long before we begin to see it happening...............jmho  

 

I was thinking that when the video came out on YouTube of the Drone firing a pistol.

It can't be much harder to rig a drop mechanism for a grenade or other explosive. For that matter, turning one into a flying fire bomb should be all too easy as well.

 

And never mind ISIS and the like... Folks want to lose their minds over "evil guns" and mass-shootings... what happens when the stuff we're talking about gets tried out by people who like to use theaters, schools, and churches as targets of opportunity?

 

And I'm equally sure that somebody's going to get the idea to fly something into a prison or jail that doesn't need to be there, eventually.

 

So, it seems to me that the general public might have a whole new inanimate object to blame for what people do, pretty soon.

 

Who knows... it might be kind'a nice to see something other than firearms catch the blame for the mayhem, for a change.

Edited August 1, 2015 by OldHat63

[DaveTN]

I'm just wondering how long it will be before ISIS or some other terrorist groups begin using these small personal drones to begin flying explosive devices into air crafts or flying them into military bases and blowing up buildings and killing soldiers in the bases. Think about how much damage 1 lb of C-4 can do when detonated? They could detonate one under the bottom of an airliner and bring it down. I bet it's not long before we begin to see it happening...............jmho

How’s that different from those that want to outlaw 50 cals and “assault type rifles” for the very same reasons?

ISIS using C4 and a drone? Why not just use an RPG?

Off the top of my head I can think of far more accessible and just as deadly delivery systems that are less noticeable than a drone with C4 and can carry far more weight than a drone.

[DaveTN]

1. - Apples and Oranges.  Especially since we both know that depending on exactly where the trespasser is, they may automatically be considered a threat, according to TN law. ( Anybody remember the off-duty deputy a few years back that was on the front porch of a house he didn't own, and was shot by the home owner through the door?  How'd that turn out? )
 
Also... TN allows for the use of force - but not lethal force - to terminate simple trespass.
 
2. - Since a drone isn't alive, no amount of force used against it can be considered "lethal". It's not alive, so it's nothing worse than property damage.  The only trouble that will come is from such things as firing a gun where it's illegal, or endangering others.
 
One way or the other, we're not discussing shooting humans here... only their toys.

So you think this guy can convince a Judge that he didn’t put those neighbors that were outside in danger? He fired a shotgun in the air in a residential neighborhood at a device that was no danger to anyone. Are we (or the Judge) supposed to believe that a person that reckless was for one minute concerned with where his shotgun blast went or where that drone dropped?

[Omega]

How’s that different from those that want to outlaw 50 cals and “assault type rifles” for the very same reasons?

ISIS using C4 and a drone? Why not just use an RPG?

Off the top of my head I can think of far more accessible and just as deadly delivery systems that are less noticeable than a drone with C4 and can carry far more weight than a drone.

Unless you didn't quote the entire message I am not sure about the correlation between his statement and the 50 cal.  An RPG needs line of sight and carrying one into a position to fire one would be difficult, while with these drones it would be easily deployed.  If talking about a car bomb or even an ultralight, then yes those two methods are viable attack platforms, but it does not exclude a drone.  No, I can entirely see these used in that manner, and no law will prevent it.

[OldHat63]

So you think this guy can convince a Judge that he didn’t put those neighbors that were outside in danger? He fired a shotgun in the air in a residential neighborhood at a device that was no danger to anyone. Are we (or the Judge) supposed to believe that a person that reckless was for one minute concerned with where his shotgun blast went or where that drone dropped?

 

I have no idea how a judge there is going to respond to what's happened. As a matter of fact, I'm not going to guess at this particular incident at all.

 

The whole thing though... and everyone here's comments on it, does make me wonder about property and privacy rights, as well as how far up those rights extend. And that's what prompted my first post here.

 

I mean, let's say a person figured out how to hover, say, 25 feet off the ground - without any sort of obvious vehicle. And he/she is within the bounds of your property lines. 

 

Are they trespassing or not? If so, what's the upper limit to that claim being good? If not... why? 'Cause they aren't touching the ground?

 

As a side note, anybody inclined to fly a drone into my "airspace" here... go ahead. 'Cause there's very little open space that you can fly anything into without a tree "eating" it. And above that, well, you ain't gonna see anything but tree tops and maybe a small patch of my roof.

 

Oh, and as to my second post here... it was simply in response to what you asked, since it'd be rude to ignore you... even though I figured you should already know the answer.

 

Although I'm rather curious to see how it all turns out, it's mostly because of the questions that are going to eventually have to be both asked and answered.

 

One other thing... You mentioned the drone dropping... What if it had some sort of failure on it's own, then dropped on and hurt the property owner or his kids? Would it be a case of assault? Would something like that make the drone a dangerous trespasser?

 

Like I said, there's a lot of questions with this stuff... and they are certainly gonna need answering.

Edited August 1, 2015 by OldHat63

[Ted S.]

So lets disregard the FAA and the potential legality of flying a drone over private property since people do not own the airspace over their property (or really the land, but that'll get this too complicated, so lets assume fee simple ownership grants allodial property rights for the sake of simplicity).

 

1. Assume that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy on their property. 

 

2. Assume airspace is not part of the property and is not owned by the owners of the property.

 

3. Assume this drone is (as alleged) recording private activity (in any way, whether temporary through a live feed of the camera, and/or recorded to a memory card) on the property which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

That reasonable expectation of privacy is violated the moment any form of audio and/or photographical device has a sensor actively capturing any form of private activity on said property and thus is actively violating the reasonable expectation of privacy on said property. The means by which the sensor of the devices records the private activity is completely immaterial. So regardless of the method the data was captured; the nature of the captured data being private violates that reasonable expectation of privacy.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Ted S.

[Oh Shoot]

I have a feeling if that drone were under control of the NSA or whatever three letter agency, or local LEA, etc, most everybody would be against it?

 

But some of the same folks would say it's okay for another private citizen to do the same?

 

- OS

Edited August 2, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[OldHat63]

2. Assume airspace is not part of the property and is not owned by the owners of the property.

 

 

Sure... just as soon as somebody defines what "Airspace" is exactly.

 

Where does it start? Where does it stop?

 

The stopping part is pretty easy: Where's the air stop, and it just becomes space?

 

The starting part... not so much.

 

Building codes around here won't let you put up a house that's taller than 35 ft. above the ground it's setting on. And I have trees on my property that are in the 60 to 80 ft. range. And I've already asked earlier about a minimum ceiling for civilian aircraft.

 

So... what number are we using?  Anything above ground level? Or is there some more reasonable altitude to be considered?

 

You mentioned a reasonable expectation of privacy, so how about a reasonable expectation of ownership? No one would find it acceptable to have an overpass built 90 feet above and across their property and home without their permission, I think, so why should anything else be any different?

[Sam1]

 

 

That reasonable expectation of privacy is violated the moment any form of audio and/or photographical device has a sensor actively capturing any form of private activity on said property and thus is actively violating the reasonable expectation of privacy on said property. The means by which the sensor of the devices records the private activity is completely immaterial. So regardless of the method the data was captured; the nature of the captured data being private violates that reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

I was curious about the wiretap stuff as well, but unless someone coughs up the sd card, there will never be proof that it was actually recorded.

[2.ooohhh]

So lets disregard the FAA and the potential legality of flying a drone over private property since people do not own the airspace over their property (or really the land, but that'll get this too complicated, so lets assume fee simple ownership grants allodial property rights for the sake of simplicity).

 

1. Assume that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy on their property. 

 

2. Assume airspace is not part of the property and is not owned by the owners of the property.

 

3. Assume this drone is (as alleged) recording private activity (in any way, whether temporary through a live feed of the camera, and/or recorded to a memory card) on the property which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

That reasonable expectation of privacy is violated the moment any form of audio and/or photographical device has a sensor actively capturing any form of private activity on said property and thus is actively violating the reasonable expectation of privacy on said property. The means by which the sensor of the devices records the private activity is completely immaterial. So regardless of the method the data was captured; the nature of the captured data being private violates that reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

 

Sure... just as soon as somebody defines what "Airspace" is exactly.

 

Where does it start? Where does it stop?

 

The stopping part is pretty easy: Where's the air stop, and it just becomes space?

 

The starting part... not so much.

 

Building codes around here won't let you put up a house that's taller than 35 ft. above the ground it's setting on. And I have trees on my property that are in the 60 to 80 ft. range. And I've already asked earlier about a minimum ceiling for civilian aircraft.

 

So... what number are we using?  Anything above ground level? Or is there some more reasonable altitude to be considered?

 

You mentioned a reasonable expectation of privacy, so how about a reasonable expectation of ownership? No one would find it acceptable to have an overpass built 90 feet above and across their property and home without their permission, I think, so why should anything else be any different?

 

 

Well to date there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy outside in your backyard unless you taken reasonable measures to assure such. The airspace 500'+ is considered navigable and you'll have a hard time attempting to stop anyone with a pilot's license and a plane from flying over it. Now the individual property owner's "airspace" extends as high as they need where their legal use of the land is concerned. So if you had a 150' RF antenna tower that was legally marked and erected it would be reasonable that you could expect any "aircraft" to pass at a safe distance, depending on the craft that could be from 50' to 500' at that altitude. 

[Ted S.]

Sure... just as soon as somebody defines what "Airspace" is exactly.

 

Where does it start? Where does it stop?

 

The stopping part is pretty easy: Where's the air stop, and it just becomes space?

 

The starting part... not so much.

 

Building codes around here won't let you put up a house that's taller than 35 ft. above the ground it's setting on. And I have trees on my property that are in the 60 to 80 ft. range. And I've already asked earlier about a minimum ceiling for civilian aircraft.

 

So... what number are we using?  Anything above ground level? Or is there some more reasonable altitude to be considered?

 

You mentioned a reasonable expectation of privacy, so how about a reasonable expectation of ownership? No one would find it acceptable to have an overpass built 90 feet above and across their property and home without their permission, I think, so why should anything else be any different?

 

Full Definition of AIRSPACE

:  the space lying above the earth or above a certain area of land or water; especially :  the space lying above a nation and coming under its jurisdiction

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/airspace

 

airspace

[ ˈe(ə)rˌspās ]

NOUN

space available in the atmosphere immediately above the earth:

"temples and mosques fight for airspace with skyscrapers"

Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

 

airspace

noun

1. a space occupied by air.

 

4. the region of the atmosphere above a plot of ground, to which the owner has rights or access.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/airspace

 

 

Those are general definitions of airspace. Now on the messy subject of ownership. In America, property rights originate from the common law system called fee simple. Essentially, you don't own the land per se, but you have an interest in the land that allows you certain defined rights on that land so long as you pay a quit rent to the Allodial holder of the land. In America, that is the government. Your rent is property taxes. This country doesn't allow citizens to have an allodial title (which basically entitles you to claim the land as your property and do with it as you wish; you own the land, anything in the land like minerals, dirt, water, etc, and anything above the land as high up as you can develop). Fee simple titles mean you are given certain defined rights to the land, and development right on the land, so long as you keep paying that rent. This means development rights of the airspace can be and are regulated by the issuer and collector of the rent (tax), which is mostly local to the state. That's why the subject of property in this country are is so befuddling: rights granted to the holder of the land title vary from city to city, from county to county, and from state to state.

 

 

It would be impractical for the development of air travel for individual landowners to own all the space above them, therefore legislators established a public easement in the airspace above 500 ft in order to prevent claims of trespassing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

 

Even with this vague definition of specific airspace above the property, you may not have the right to develop your property up but a couple dozen feet. Depends on the local property laws.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Ted S.

[Ted S.]

Well to date there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy outside in your backyard unless you taken reasonable measures to assure such. The airspace 500'+ is considered navigable and you'll have a hard time attempting to stop anyone with a pilot's license and a plane from flying over it. Now the individual property owner's "airspace" extends as high as they need where their legal use of the land is concerned. So if you had a 150' RF antenna tower that was legally marked and erected it would be reasonable that you could expect any "aircraft" to pass at a safe distance, depending on the craft that could be from 50' to 500' at that altitude. 

 

 

Fair point, but the case being discussed the man did have a reasonable expectation of privacy:

 

 

He said, “You know, when you’re in your own property, within a six-foot privacy fence, you have the expectation of privacy, We don’t know if he was looking at the girls

 

I think a six foot privacy fence is more than a reasonable measure to assure privacy. It's unreasonable to build a large enough structure to keep drones from peeking in your back yard, plus, depending on location, a large enough structure to accommodate such a motive may be larger than they are allowed to develop, could potentially violate some aesthetic ordinances, or may violate some other esoteric code that's exclusive to their area.

[No_0ne]

A question....  Does the FAA have an established Minimum Ceiling for civilian aircraft over populated areas?

 

If so, I would think that it would apply to drones or any other "telepresence" not on "official business" or otherwise without the property owner's permission. ( A warrant should be required for that Official Business, BTW. )

 

In other words, anybody flying a drone over somebody else's property below a certain altitude should have to deal with the same rules or laws as any other trespasser.

 

Anyway, if there's no such minimum, maybe there should be, and maybe it should also be applied to drones or other AC aircraft....

 

Yes, 500' over "populated" areas, 1000' over "densely populated" areas.  However, RC aircraft are designated as "hobby" vehicles for now, the FAA lost a court case in the spring in which they were trying to assert jurisdiction over "drones" (which is probably not the correct term for quadcopters and their ilk), according to the case Congress has yet to expand any sort of regulatory authority to the FAA over UAV's, other than that already defined by normal airspace restrictions.  As such, as of today there are essentially no guidelines or restrictions on these types of crafts, the FAA recently published some "suggestions" for RC pilots, such as limiting altitude to 400' agl and keeping the craft in "line of sight", however it's generally believed that unless Congress changes some laws that the FAA has zero chance of actually winning a case based on these guidelines...

I saw on the news this morning that a drone flew within 100 feet of an airliner that was trying to land at some airport and Pilot almost had to abort landing. I don't have any objections to big boys and their toys but I think Big boys need to grow up when it comes to safety and respect of other people. If they cannot fly their toys and respect the feelings of others and safety of others then they should be arrested and charged accordingly.............jmho

 

It's difficult to believe that a pilot of a jetliner could spot any current quadcopter or similar device at a distance of 100' below the flightpath, while flying a 200 mph approach, I know it's often hard to accurately spot one from the ground at 100'.  In any case there are already airspace restrictions around established airports, most airliners will fly into mainly class C and above, which have will have limitations imposed to at least 5 miles from the airport, if there was a UAV flying in the final approach path then there was clearly a violation.  As an aside, the DJI Phantom 3 (the model that was shot down being discussed in this thread) will not fly into classified airspace in GPS mode, and if an attempt is made to launch one within the specified airspace of a known airport, the motors will not activate ...

[chances R]

And here is the other side to the story. Heck of a shot though. 90yds and over his backyard for 2 seconds.

http://my.xfinity.com/video/man-describes-flight-path-of-drone-in-kentucky-dispute/496275523734/Comcast/NBCNews_new?cid=hero_sf_weird

[DaveTN]

Expectation of privacy is more of a legal test than a law. What KY law did the drone pilot violate?

I would expect the state has some kind of peeping tom laws, but I doubt they would apply. Even the guy that shot the drone down said he didn’t know what it was doing. Apparently he felt that simply crossing his property line justified his actions.

[DaveTN]

I have a feeling if that drone were under control of the NSA or whatever three letter agency, or local LEA, etc, most everybody would be against it?

It happens now. You can't go out and shoot down a Police helicopter.
Boeing is building one heck of a UAV that can stay aloft for days and is being outfitted with extremely high resolution cameras that will record everything. I'm sure its use will become common place.
 

But some of the same folks would say it's okay for another private citizen to do the same?

Unless there are laws against it; of course it’s okay for a private citizen.
If there are laws against someone flying a drone over your property; call the cops and have them arrested.

[bud]

. Edited August 8, 2015 by bud

[2.ooohhh]

Fair point, but the case being discussed the man did have a reasonable expectation of privacy:

 

 

I think a six foot privacy fence is more than a reasonable measure to assure privacy. It's unreasonable to build a large enough structure to keep drones from peeking in your back yard, plus, depending on location, a large enough structure to accommodate such a motive may be larger than they are allowed to develop, could potentially violate some aesthetic ordinances, or may violate some other esoteric code that's exclusive to their area.

 

A six foot fence is a reasonable measure to assure privacy from average passers by on foot. To say that a 6' privacy fence is a "reasonable measure" to prevent aerial photography from public airspace is a huge leap. At my other house it's not uncommon to have photographers lurking on the beach at all hours (all the beaches in that state are public) trying to catch someone famous that apparently has a house a few hundred yards down the beach from ours. I've talked to the sheriff, so long as they don't step foot on my property not a damn thing I can do, sure I could put up a 30' foot wall to block any nosey photographers from shooting my hot tub from the dunes but then I couldn't see the dunes and beach from my hot tub either. It's just something I've had to learn to live with.

[Sam1]

At my other house it's not uncommon to have photographers lurking on the beach at all hours (all the beaches in that state are public) trying to catch someone famous that apparently has a house a few hundred yards down the beach from ours.

 

 

And we now just found a new place to have the next TGO meet & greet.

[K191145]

Somebody here or Facebook mentioned something about a "drone Jammer", Now that sounds like a stealthy way to drop a nosey drone, no one would know where it came from or could prove it, perv just lost the signal, could happen.

[2.ooohhh]

Somebody here or Facebook mentioned something about a "drone Jammer", Now that sounds like a stealthy way to drop a nosey drone, no one would know where it came from or could prove it, perv just lost the signal, could happen.

RF Jammers are illegal, banned by the FCC and the use of a jammer in the US carries a very heavy fine. Also many drones don't need signals other than the GPS signal from the sats, mine will go into auto pilot, retrace it's steps and land from where it took off from originally. So that's a just another quick way to end up in hot water much like this guy who shot this one down. Even if a drone pilot breaks the law by flying somewhere they shouldn't it doesn't give you a license to break the law to stop them. Pick up your phone, dial 911, and record the incident if you can safely.

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/man-put-cell-phone-jammer-in-car-to-stop-driver-calls-fcc-says/

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/truck-driver-has-gps-jammer-accidentally-jams-newark-airport/

Edited August 2, 2015 by 2.ooohhh

[bigun]

Thankfully I live in the country on 30 something ac. So since I can hunt on it I declared it a no fly zone. BE WARNED. LOL.